Xysticus luctuosus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Xysticus luctuosus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Blackwall, 1836) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Harvey et al., 2017 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | EN, criteria: B2ab(ii,iv): little change since 2017 review. Recorded at only 1 of its former 16 English sites (4 in Wales/Scotland) since 2000 and recently at a new site in Cumbria (Gait Barrow). Possibility of identification confusion with X. acerbus in some older records. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extremely rare/fragmented relative to availability of apparently suitable habitat |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Widely distributed from variety of habitats but appears to prefer field and shrub layer in woodland. Currently impossible to assess primary drivers of decline because of lack of understanding of autecology but apparent extreme rarity makes likelihood of recovery low. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of all recorded, nearby and apparently suitable sites, using standardised methodology to assess current status (and establish baseline for national monitoring programme)
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Where preserved specimens are available, identification of older records should be checked (vs X. acerbus) before sites are revisited
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to establish microhabitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Graffham Common, West Sussex
Comments: Only possibility of achieving this is at the single site where it has been recorded since 2000
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure site managers are aware of species past/recent presence and vulnerability on their sites. Update them with Action 1 and 2 results to provide any resulting guidance on locations/management and inform commissioning of invertebrate survey work (methods likely to detect/damage species, need for retention and examination of spider by-catch when not a survey target)
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: An action to promote management measures, including deer control, for woodland understorey may become appropriate if Actions 1 and 2 confirm this is the preferred habitat. Assemble mailing list and update site managers at species-appropriate intervals; most easily delivered by BAS/SRS.
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.